' Feeling aggrieved of their transfers made vide order dated 2-3-2000 passed by Superintending Engineer, Upper Jhelum Canal Circle, Jhelum, petitioners have filed this petition under section 22- A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. Praying that the respondent be directed not to commit any further unfair labour practice and the impugned transfer orders may be set aside. It is alleged by the petitioners that they are active members of Punjab United Irrigation Employees Union (Regd.) and they have been made to suffer on account of their lawful trade union activities. Case of the petitioners is that their transfers are illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority and the same being discriminatory amount to unfair labour practice.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the respondent officer who is present in Court. On my query, the officer has stated that Tariq Mahmood, petitioner No,1 ever since his appointment made On 15-1-1996 is posted in Gujrat Division, UJC, Gujrat and similarly petitioner No, 2 is also posted in Gujrat Division since his appointment on 7-11-1993. He further submits that Tariq Hussain, petitioner No,3 was posted in Jhelum Division, UJC Jhelum on 1-9-1987 and since then, he is posted there. As regards petitioner No,4 Arshad Mehmood, his contention is that he was posted in Jhelum Division on 18-3-1993 and since then he is working there. The respondent has emphatically denied that the impugned transfers have been made on account of any trade union activities of the petitioners. His submission is that the petitioners have been transferred in the exigency of service and not by way of punishment.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not controverted the dates of appointments/postings of the petitioners mentioned by the respondent. He has, however, made a grievance that there were many other employees who were posted in Jhelum and Gujrat Divisions for longer period than the petitioners, but they have not been transferred. Learned counsel has, however, not been able to name such employees. Even in the petition, the petitioners have not pointed out the names of such employees and they have just made a vague allegation in para.4 of the petition that they have been discriminated "as those with longest stay have not been disturbed and the petitioners with lesser stay have been picked up". Similarly, the petitioners have made a usual routine allegation that they are active members of Employees' Union and they have been taking active part in the lawful trade union activities, for which reason they have been made to suffer. They have not mentioned any specific instances of their trade union activities nor have they referred to any previous acts of victimization/discrimination committed by the activities.
Respondent with a view to punish them for their trade union I C
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, and the respondent officer and having gone through the contents of this petition, I am inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the impugned transfers have been made in exigency of service and not by way of unfair labour practice. Petitioners appear to have filed this petition only with a view to obtain the stay orders against their transfers.. Needless to observe that, petitioners being civil servants, they are liable to be transferred from one place to the other and they cannot be allowed to frustrate the lawful orders of the authorities by simply alleging that their transfers have been made on account of their trade union activities.
5. Upshot of he above discussion is that the impugned transfers to avoid which, this petition has been filed are not open to any exception. This petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.